On Oct 29, 2003, at 3:42 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>
> It actually improves efficiency -- for the simplest approach to
> implementation, your version requires you to search _up_ the tree
> every time you think you have a hit.
This goes against everything I understand about XPath. I guess I am
thinking about keys in an XSL way. Doing it the more efficient way is
certainly easier (that's great and it seems like lazyiness on the
schema writer's part not the schemas validator's). I just would not
have thought of it as more efficient. Are you saying it is more
efficient in terms of memory usage and/or speed or some other criteria?
I do believe you know best, but it just goes against the grain, to me.
best,
-Rob
p.s. I wish you would leave the context of the message you are replying
to.